nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?
otseng wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am
The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.
For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?
While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.
otseng wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 7:34 am
Another ad hom argument and accusation of bias.
It is NOT an ad hominem to point out bias, the Christian bias of STURP organizers who pretend to be objective. Combined with the Catholic Church, they do not want more actual, and truly scientific examinations of the evidence. And I agree with you. It isn't necessary. The cloth is an obvious hoax. I find McCrrone's careful, well reasoned facts, rationale and conclusion much more persuasive than STURP'S "We don't know... it's a mystery."
As others have observed, arguing science to Shroud (there have been dozens of fake shrouds) believers is like talking cosmology to Flat Earthers. I'm out.
___________________________________
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
Diogenes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 4:12 pm
It is NOT an ad hominem to point out bias, the Christian bias of STURP organizers who pretend to be objective. Combined with the Catholic Church, they do not want more actual, and truly scientific examinations of the evidence. And I agree with you. It isn't necessary. The cloth is an obvious hoax. I find McCrrone's careful, well reasoned facts, rationale and conclusion much more persuasive than STURP'S "We don't know... it's a mystery."
As others have observed, arguing science to Shroud (there have been dozens of fake shrouds) believers is like talking cosmology to Flat Earthers. I'm out.
All baseless assertions without any evidence. As for bias, Harry Gove testified McCrone had biased motivation:
I sometimes think that McCrone dreamed of becoming history's greatest
iconoclast. Having, in his view, demolished the authenticity of the Vinland Map he saw
the chance to do the same to the Turin Shroud!
After McCrone did his research on the sticky tapes, he attempted to publish his findings in peer-reviewed journals and to have STURP's seal of approval on his paper. But, when STURP team members reviewed his work, they did not approve it because it was not scientifically rigorous.
STURP comments on McCrone's paper:
The letter reads in part, "In short, your data is misrepresented, your observations are highly questionable, and your conclusions are pontifications rather than scientific logic; I cannot permit this paper
to carry the Shroud of Turin Research Project's seal of approval."174 The second paper received a "similar" response.175 Heller attributes McCrone's resignation from STURP to McCrone "feeling insulted" at the reception of the two papers.176 One indication that McCrone had the capacity to be insulted to the point that he consequently resigned appears in this 1996 comment: I expected the world to agree with my conclusions [about the Shroud]. I've been spoiled. I'm used having everyone agree with me (sometimes even when I've been wrong). Now, to find out they don't believe me when I'm right is difficult to take.177
McCrone certainly had the capacity to insult,
for he wrote to Wilson, "Adler is an ass and you may
quote me," 179 and stated in his book, "The variance
between their [the STURP scientists'] conclusions
and the truth concerning the Shroud image is due to
incompetence, deceit, or a combination of the two."
McCrone "resigned" from STURP during this episode:
"I had also been
told by STURP that I'd never be able to publish my
papers because one of them would be asked to
review them by any Journal Editor." 183 McCrone's
resignation occurred in June 1980, 184 and it would be
useful to know when he was told his papers would not
clear any peer-review panel: was it before or after
his resignation? If before, then McCrone's being told
they would never clear almost certainly contributed to
his desire to resign. If it was after he resigned, then
the ‘this won't get published' conveyance could have
been in the form ‘These papers need serious work.
You resigned from STURP and so cannot do
additional testing on the slides, testing that is
necessary to make your papers publishable. And
without those experiments, we are not going to permit
these papers to be published.'
Heller and Adler did additional chemical tests to confirm it's not painting, but real blood on the shroud:
By its appearance under a microscope, the
‘blood’ appeared to be blood to Heller and Adler, who
should know based on their familiarity with blood and
a control blood preparation. Heller’s insistence that
testing would be relied upon and not merely
identification-by-sight resulted in H&A conducting
extensive, even exhaustive, testing of Shroud material.
Through their testing, Heller and Adler obtained
positive wet-chemistry test results for blood material,
results that included the detection of heme porphyrin,
hemochromagen, cyanmethemoglobin, and bile
pigments. In addition, the ‘blood’ tested positive for
protein, and proteolytic enzymes completely dissolved
‘blood’ material. H&A presented several
physics-based measurements indicating that blood
material resides on the Shroud, including X-ray
fluorescence data revealing higher-than-elsewhere
iron levels in ‘blood’ areas, and indicative
microspectrophotometry spectra.
In his research, McCrone relied on the older technique of visual observation through a microscope.
Trained on, familiar with, and devoted to the
polarized light microscope, McCrone was reluctant to
do wet-chemistry testing and loathe to accept the
peer-reviewed results of the 1978 physics-based
testing. Such a phenomenon is a common occurrence
17in the world of science, where people often prefer to
continue using machines and techniques they are
familiar with rather than adopt and use newer and
better techniques and instruments.
Because he observed the samples that was on sticky tape, it would be practically impossible to differentiate if a particle was birefringent or not because the tape would contribute to the refraction of light.
Further casting doubt on McCrone’s
microscope claims is the fact that he attributed
crystalline characteristics, including birefringence, to
red Shroud particles based on examination of the
particles on the Mylar sticky tape, which makes
anything appear birefringent.
[Replying to otseng in post #2213]
The reason I'm 'out' is the perseveration of using biased, pseudoscience sources like STURP, Barrie Schwortz's Shroud.com and newvistas.homestead.com, instead of legitimate scientific sources. Rather than waste time with the easy, tho' tedious task of pointing out the many instances of bias, suffice it to say Schwortz's website is in the same business as the original creators of the hoax: making money by selling the hoax to the 'faithful.'
Schwortz is not a scientist, but a photographer. His inclusion as a "researcher" and STURP member is telling.
Welcome to the Shroud of Turin Website Store. Here you will find a variety of Shroud of Turin materials available from a number of different sources. Note that items from the Barrie M. Schwortz Collection can be purchased directly from this website using a credit/debit card. ....
Each item from the Barrie M. Schwortz collection includes a link to the "Secure Order Form" where you can safely place your credit/debit card order via a 256 bit encrypted Secure Server. You may also go directly to the order form... [ ]
The following items are available directly from the Barrie M. Schwortz Collection and this website (order via the Secure Order Form using your credit/debit card).
Shroud of Turin Backlit Transparencies in PhotoGlow Frames
Miniature Shroud Replica On Cotton Canvas
Lifesize Shroud Face - 16" x 20" Fine Art Print
Shroud of Turin Lithographic Print Set
Ray Rogers In His Own Words - DVD Video
Barrie Schwortz - 35 Years of Shroud Science, A Personal Perspective - DVD Video
Shroud of Turin Lifesize Photographs
Shroud of Turin Lifesize Replica on Cotton Canvas
Let me know when you have legitimate evidence rather than the opinions of a photographer and film producer.
Mere rhetoric and biased, unscientific sources do not merit a response.
___________________________________
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
Diogenes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 12:58 pm
The reason I'm 'out' is the perseveration of using biased, pseudoscience sources like STURP, Barrie Schwortz's Shroud.com and newvistas.homestead.com, instead of legitimate scientific sources.
When there's no arguments left for the skeptic, then resort to accusations of bias and make fallacious statements.
Anyone can double check everything I've posted to confirm if they are factual or not. It does not really matter what is the website I use, though I have intentionally tried to avoid any "Christian" sources. If there's something I've posted that is not factually correct, feel free to post counter-evidence with a reference. It is certainly possible my sources are incorrect, but they are not incorrect just because of any perceived bias. Simply hand-waving my sources as "biased, pseudoscience sources" does not invalidate anything I've posted.
The reason all the skeptics are dropping out is there are no good arguments and evidence to support the TS is a fake. If anyone disagrees with this, then produce your evidence with a reference instead of posting fallacious reasoning.
The reason all the skeptics are dropping out is there are no good arguments and evidence to support the TS is a fake. If anyone disagrees with this, then produce your evidence with a reference instead of posting fallacious reasoning.
I haven't dropped out. If you can refute the argument that the absence of three-dimensional distortion makes the images appear to be of a bas-relief nature and not the image of a human body, then cut to the chase and do so instead of beating around the bush with vague promises to do so at some later time.
Diogenes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 12:58 pm
The reason I'm 'out' is the perseveration of using biased, pseudoscience sources like STURP, Barrie Schwortz's Shroud.com and newvistas.homestead.com, instead of legitimate scientific sources.
When there's no arguments left for the skeptic, then resort to accusations of bias and make fallacious statements.
Anyone can double check everything I've posted to confirm if they are factual or not. It does not really matter what is the website I use, though I have intentionally tried to avoid any "Christian" sources. If there's something I've posted that is not factually correct, feel free to post counter-evidence with a reference. It is certainly possible my sources are incorrect, but they are not incorrect just because of any perceived bias. Simply hand-waving my sources as "biased, pseudoscience sources" does not invalidate anything I've posted.
The reason all the skeptics are dropping out is there are no good arguments and evidence to support the TS is a fake. If anyone disagrees with this, then produce your evidence with a reference instead of posting fallacious reasoning.
This false claim could not be less accurate or more unfair. The arguments for the contrived 'Shroud' are overwhelming and have been made by Christians, Church officials, and believers, and made here repeatedly by skeptics using science. But when the biased claims of Shroud believers have been as solidly debunked as the 'flat Earth,' there is little more to say that is not repetitious. Do you have ANY facts that come from unbiased sources? As I wrote, I'll respond when and if you present actual science and fact from reasonable sources.
It is interesting to consider why some are so vehement in their support of the shroud as real, since their faith does not (or should not) rest on it's authenticity. In the meantime, despite the close guard the Church and STURP keep on the shroud itself, refusing additional Carbon 14 tests while disputing the ones already performed, new evidence of the hoax continues to emerge and be published by Christian sources:
The study, published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences, essentially states that all the evidence from the shroud indicates the person who was wrapped with the cloth was standing up at the time.
The biblical account of Christ's crucifixion makes it clear that Jesus had died when he was wrapped with burial cloths, so he couldn't have been standing.
The abstract of the study entitled, "A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin," states that a living volunteer was used in the "investigation into the arm and body position required to obtain the blood pattern visible in the image of the Shroud of Turin." BPA stands for "bloodstain pattern analysis" in forensic sciences.
Studying the blood stains on the shroud, the research declares the stain markings at the back "are totally unrealistic" if they're supposed to have come from a body that was lying flat.
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Apr 08, 2023 7:51 am
I haven't dropped out.
Then produce evidence/reference on the shroud being a fake.
If you can refute the argument that the absence of three-dimensional distortion makes the images appear to be of a bas-relief nature and not the image of a human body, then cut to the chase and do so instead of beating around the bush with vague promises to do so at some later time.
I don't know how many times I'll need to say this, but I'm being methodical and organized in my argument. It's like demanding me to get to my final argument when I'm not even halfway with presenting all my evidence and to fully argue my case.
Then produce evidence/reference on the shroud being a fake.
I've presented the evidence that the cloth bears bas-relief-like images.
I don't know how many times I'll need to say this, but I'm being methodical and organized in my argument. It's like demanding me to get to my final argument when I'm not even halfway with presenting all my evidence and to fully argue my case.
The evidence you've presented so far has been countered with other evidence of the same type.
If you can beat the evidence of bas-relief imaging, it would go a long way toward clinching your case. You could dump it in quick and go right back to your discourse.
Diogenes wrote: ↑Sat Apr 08, 2023 11:05 am
new evidence of the hoax continues to emerge and be published by Christian sources:
The abstract of the study entitled, "A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin," states that a living volunteer was used in the "investigation into the arm and body position required to obtain the blood pattern visible in the image of the Shroud of Turin." BPA stands for "bloodstain pattern analysis" in forensic sciences.
Studying the blood stains on the shroud, the research declares the stain markings at the back "are totally unrealistic" if they're supposed to have come from a body that was lying flat. https://www2.cbn.com/news/world/new-stu ... -heres-why
Actually, it's not new. The CBN piece is referring to:
A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin
Matteo Borrini Ph.D., Luigi Garlaschelli M.Sc.
First published: 10 July 2018
An investigation into the arm and body position required to obtain the blood pattern visible in the image of the Shroud of Turin was performed using a living volunteer. The two short rivulets on the back of the left hand of the Shroud are only consistent with a standing subject with arms at a ca 45° angle. This angle is different from that necessary for the forearm stains, which require nearly vertical arms for a standing subject. The BPA of blood visible on the frontal side of the chest (the lance wound) shows that the Shroud represents the bleeding in a realistic manner for a standing position while the stains at the back-of a supposed postmortem bleeding from the same wound for a supine corpse-are totally unrealistic. Simulation of bleeding from the nail wounds contacting wood surfaces yielded unclear results.
This is not actually the first time they published this paper, but had published an earlier version in 2014.
Here is the 2014 paper:
D11 A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin: A Preliminary
Examination of the Left Forearm to Reconstruct the
Crucifixion Practice
Luigi Garlaschelli, Via Ponte Vecchio 52, Pavia 27100, ITALY; and Matteo Borrini, PhD*, Liverpool John
Moores University, RCEAPKSchool of Natural Sci & Psych, Byrom Street, Liverpool L3 3AF, UNITED KINGDOM
After attending this presentation, attendees will understand how a Bloodstain Pattern Analysis (BPA) could be performed on the Turin Shroud to reconstruct the original position of the man impressed on the linen.
This presentation will impact the forensic science community by demonstrating the potential of
the BPA approach on uncommon pieces of evidence, excluding the traditional crucifixion position with
arms stretched out on the crossbeam, and suggesting further evaluation of one of the most controversial
and valuable Christian relics.
Following what was proposed previously by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences' (AAFS)
community, the presumed patterns of blood stains from the crucifixion wounds on the linen of the Shroud
were approached from a forensic point of view in order to reconstruct the arms and body position during blood flow. The goal was to better understand how this ancient death penalty practice - of which almost
nothing is known - was performed.
Reddish stains are evident in the head area, in the wrist and forearm, on the chest, and on the feet
of the image on the Shroud. The present study is focused on the analysis of the left forearm, where all the
traces are visible from the wrist to the elbow. The preliminary goal of a more extensive project is to
reproduce the most similar stain pattern from a dripping point on the wrist in different arm positions.
A ballistic angle finder was used, measuring the arm-body (or forearm-body) angle from 0° (arm
parallel to the ground and perpendicular to the body) to 90° (vertical arm). The end of a transfusion cannula
was fixed at the wrist at Destot's space to simulate the dripping from a puncture-type injury where it is
usually believed that the nail for the crucifixion was positioned.
However, since the wrist stain is too large to identify a clear injury spot, two other series of
experiments were performed with the aperture of the cannula a little closer to the knuckles or to the wrist.
Whole human blood with anticoagulant was used, the latter having no influence on the flow
direction. A transfusion bag was attached to the cannula and placed above the aperture; a rolling clip on the
tubing allowed control of the blood flow rate.
All the tests performed clearly demonstrate that the angle between the arm and the body must be
greater than 80° in order for the rivulets to flow from the wrist toward the elbow, as it appears on the Shroud.
This is more reasonable considering the position of the sentenced person when attached to the cross.
Results of this study also preclude the use of any kind of ligature to tie the arm or the forearm horizontally to
the crossbeam ( patibulum ) for the "Man of the Shroud. " Considering these results, the imprint on the
Shroud does not correspond with the traditional artistic image of a crucifix with arms stretched out on the
crossbeam; a position with the arms folded backward at the elbow and bent around the crossbeam, as in the
painting of Mantegna ( Crocifissione , 1457-1459) is also not supported by this interpretation. Further
analysis will focus on the position of both arms to detect if there is symmetry and to reposition the "Man of
the Shroud " on the cross in the most suitable crime-dynamic reconstruction. The final step of this
investigation will compare the other reddish stains on the linen (head, chest, and feet) to investigate their
correspondence, mutual agreement, and the possible time sequence of their occurrence.
According to the direction of the blood dripping on the left forearm, this study demonstrates that the
traditional image of a crucified victim with arms stretched out on the crossbeam perpendicular to the body is
not supported for the "Man of the Shroud, " who should have been fixed with the arms outstretched upward
(arm-body angle greater than 80 degrees).
This video from 2014 shows how they did the experiments:
From what I can tell, the 2018 report was recycled from their 2014 report for a media blitz on the 40th year after the 1978 STURP investigation.
Many media outlets had articles in 2018 citing the report:
628-year-old fake news: Scientists prove Turin Shroud not genuine (again)
Forensic scientist Dr Matteo Borrini of Liverpool John Moores University and Luigi Garlaschelli of the University of Pavia used a living volunteer and real and synthetic blood to try to simulate possible ways that the apparent bloodstains could have got onto the shroud.
They concluded that two short rivulets of possible blood on the left hand of the shroud's ghostly figure could only have been formed by someone who was upright with their arms at an angle of about 45 degrees.
This could be consistent with someone who had been crucified with their arms held in a Y shape. Unfortunately for shroud believers, however, the forearm blood stains would require the dead body to have been wrapped in the shroud with their arms in a different position - held almost vertically above their head, rather than at an angle of 45 degrees.
The researchers, whose findings have been published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences, formed the opinion that the supposed blood spatters seem to have fallen vertically and almost randomly from someone who might well have been standing over the cloth, rather than lying in it.
When it came to the supposed lance wound, their article A BPA [Blood Pattern Analysis] Approach to the Shroud of Turin concluded: "The BPA of blood visible on the frontal side of the chest (the lance wound) shows that the shroud represents the bleeding in a realistic manner for a standing position while the stains at the back-of a supposed post-mortem bleeding from the same wound for a supine corpse-are totally unrealistic. "
Scientists Debunk Blood Of Jesus Found On The Shroud Of Turin
Now, two scientists said some bloodstains may have trickled down to the cloth from a man who was standing, not crucified, and not face down. Some bloodstains, meanwhile, were extremely inconsistent to the point that the man's supposed position was entirely unrealistic and cannot be simulated.
For their study published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences on July 10, the scientists initially wanted to determine whether the bloodstains on the Shroud of Turin was from a T-shaped, Y-shaped, or a completely different manner of crucifixion during the ancient Roman times. Instead, the bloodstains suggested that a person standing had created various positions to be able to create the bloodstains on the fabric.
Matteo Borrini, an anthropologist from the Liverpool John Moores University in the UK, and Luigi Garlaschelli of the Italian Committee for the Investigation of Claims of the Pseudoscience simulated how the rivulets of blood or the smallest bloodstream could have trickled down from Jesus's hand, forearm, chest, and lower back. They also used a belt of blood at the waist to replicate how the rivulets may have trickled from Jesus's wound.
"The two short rivulets on the back of the left hand of the Shroud are only consistent with a standing subject with arms at a 45 [degrees] angle. This angle is different from that necessary for the forearm stains, which require nearly vertical arms for a standing subject," they wrote in their study.
"The BPA of blood visible on the frontal side of the chest (the lance wound) shows that the Shroud represents the bleeding in a realistic manner for a standing position while the stains at the back - of a supposed postmortem bleeding from the same wound for a supine (lying face upward) corpse - are totally unrealistic."
CSI Study of Shroud of Turin Proves Again: Jesus Relic Is Fake
The analysis, published earlier this month in the Journal of Forensic Sciences, did not study the Shroud itself, which is kept under lock and key in the Cathedral of Turin and is only rarely shown to the public, the last time in 2015. Instead, in an experiment that looks straight out of a CSI episode, the scientists reproduced the supposed blood stains on the linen to see whether they could be compatible with bleeding that would have occurred due to injuries caused by crucifixion.
To reproduce the blood patterns on the hands and forearms, Borrini attached a transfusion tube to a volunteer's wrist and pumped blood out of it, simulating a puncture wound that would have been caused by a nail going through the victim's hand.
Borrini's team used both human blood and synthetic blood commonly employed in forensic tests.
One key problem with simulating the effects of a crucifixion is that we don't really know how Jesus - or any other victim of this brutal Roman execution method - was affixed to the cross.
The earliest artistic depictions of Jesus' death were made centuries after the fact, long after the Roman Empire had turned Christian and outlawed this punishment. Also, there are very few archaeological remains of crucifixion as a practice in general. In fact the only known solid piece of physical evidence is a 1st century C.E. heel-bone pierced by a nail, found in 1968 in a Jewish tomb in Jerusalem.
The paucity of archaeological evidence of crucifixion is mainly because people sentenced to die on the cross, a fate reserved mainly for rebellious slaves and enemies of the Roman state, would hardly be given a proper burial afterwards. Also, the person could be tied to the cross with ropes, leaving no marks on bones for archaeologists to scrutinize. Even when nails were hammered into the unfortunate victim, they would have been reused time and again, since metal was a relatively rare and expensive commodity.
Given our ignorance of the process, the forensic scientists repeated their blood-spattering experiments multiple times, placing the arms of the volunteer at different angles to the body and in various positions that may have been likely used in a real crucifixion.
When the arms were placed almost vertically, simulating a crucifixion in a Y position, the dripping blood formed rivulets on the forearms of the victim that were roughly similar to the patterns on the forearms of the image on the linen. But in that position, the spatter on the volunteer's wrist did not match the stains visible on the left wrist of the man on the Shroud.
To obtain that pattern, the victim would have had to be crucified with his arms roughly at a 45 degree angle to the body - which is similar to most classical depictions of Jesus' crucifixion. In that position, however, the blood would not have reached the forearms, assuming that blood - even the Messiah's - obeys the law of gravity.
This means that if a person wrapped in the Shroud had truly been a victim of Rome's cruelest form of capital punishment, he must have been somehow crucified in two different positions at different times.
The scientists also repeated the experiment with the volunteer lying horizontally in the same position as the man in the Shroud, to test whether the stains might have been caused by post-mortem bleeding. But again, the patterns did not match, Borrini told Haaretz.
Equally contradictory results emerged from the analysis of the chest wound, which was simulated by pouring blood on a mannequin in the same spot where the man in the Shroud sports a deep gash. When the mannequin was placed vertically, as if on the cross, the blood predictably flowed down to the abdomen, just as is seen also in the Shroud. But the liquid did not trickle to the back and form a pool in the kidney area, as appears on the image on the linen.
Also when the mannequin was placed horizontally, again to simulate post-mortem bleeding, the liquid dribbled down to the area of the shoulder blades - much higher than on the Shroud.
"The blood patterns contradict each other and form an unrealistic picture, " Borrini concludes.
The most likely explanation is that the stains were painted by an artist who knew little or nothing about crucifixion and its effects, he concludes.
There are several issues with the articles and their experiment:
First off, the articles overstate the case by saying it "proves" the shroud to be a fake. Credit though goes to the paper authors which do not state they have "proven" the TS to be a fake and it's only the news outlets that is sensationalizing the report.
Second, the experiments highly simplified what happened and at most only showed how they think it happened could not have happened that way.
Third, the methods of replication are not really representative of how the crucifixion, side piercing, and burial actually happened. They used a live person and a dummy for the tests. Also, they used blood with anticoagulant and they piped the blood.
Fourth, we don't really know how the blood stains were formed on the shroud. Even if one demonstrates how it was not formed, it does not argue against how it was formed.
Here are some articles that challenge their claims:
Three are the pertinent objections Garlaschelli and Borrini would have to answer. We summarise them:
1) The authors of the study evaluated the blood dripping by comparing two completely different surfaces. The one of the plastic mannequin, smooth, clean, and intact, and the cutaneous one, dirty, swollen, and lacerated of the Shroud's Man. It is obvious that the direction of the blood flow is different; the opposite would have been impossible.
2) The authors of the study put in comparison two different substances. On the plastic mannequin they poured a bag of blood added with an anticoagulant, which made the liquid more fluid than normal, similar to water (this can be clearly seen in the video they published). The blood come out of the Shroud's Man, instead, outflew from wounds and had not been prepared in a lab, which is why it presented itself as viscous, also in consideration of the traumatic stress he had undergone (the shroud image shows the signs of the torture suffered by the man). Even in this case, it is a foreseeable banality that some fluidified and some more viscous blood may respectively take very different directions. A comparison between two different situations.
3) The authors of the study ignored numerous variables which are very influential on the bloodstains. Beside not knowing the data of the speed at which the blood comes out of the wounds as opposed to the one at which the blood is poured on the mannequin in the lab, they did not consider that the corpse of the Shroud's Man has been certainly touched after his death, came into contact with the very linen cloth in which the Man's image was mysteriously imprinted like a photographic negative (by colouring, inexplicably, only the superficial fibrils). Furthermore, the Man certainly had spasms and foreseeably moved because of pain whilst wounds were inflicted. These variables have certainly deviated, obstructed, or interrupted the "normal " dripping or pathway of the blood on his body. None of this was considered by the two researchers.
In an interview with Vatican News July 17, Emanuela Marinelli, an expert on the Shroud of Turin, said "there was nothing scientific " about the experiments conducted by Matteo Borrini, an Italian forensic scientist, and Luigi Garlaschelli, an Italian chemist.
"Does it seem like a scientific criterion to take a mannequin - like the ones used to display clothes in a store window - and a sponge soaked in fake blood attached to a piece wood that is pressed on the right side of a dummy to see where the streams of blood fall? " Marinelli asked.
Garlaschelli posted a video of the scientific experiment on YouTube in 2015 using a live person to study the blood patterns in various positions as well as pressing a sponge against a plastic mannequin to examine the way the fake blood flowed.
Marinelli, however, said the experiments conducted by Borrini and Garlaschelli lacked the accuracy of past studies involving cadavers of men who died of hemopericardium, the pooling of blood in the heart, which is believed to be what ultimately caused Jesus' death on the cross.
Those accurate studies, she told Vatican News, "yielded different results from those of Borrini and Garlaschelli. "
]
